Network independent safety protocol for industrial controller using data manipulation techniques

ABSTRACT

A highly reliable industrial control system is produced using a network running a standard serial protocol on two redundant messages. A safety protocol is embedded within the standard serial protocol by adding to special error detecting data redundant with the protocol of the standard serial network. In addition, only a single network protocol module (CAN) is necessary to transfer two logical messages of data between modules. In order to still provide redundancy, the data on one of the messages is encoded in a predetermined manner, such as by inverting each bit of data, prior to transmission over the network. The data is then decoded at the destination module and compared to the data on the other logical message to determine whether a transmission error has occurred. Safety protocol may be implemented in an additional level for integrated circuits or through firmware changes in programmable aspects of the industrial controller components.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

Not Applicable.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

Not Applicable.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to industrial controllers used for real-time control of industrial processes, and in particular to high-reliability industrial controllers appropriate for use in devices intended to protect human life and health. “High reliability” refers generally to systems that guard against the propagation of erroneous data or signals by detecting error or fault conditions and signaling their occurrence and/or entering into a predetermined fault state. High reliability systems may be distinguished from high availability systems, however, the present invention may be useful in both such systems and therefore, as used herein, high reliability should not be considered to exclude high availability systems.

Industrial controllers are special purpose computers used in controlling industrial processes. Under the direction of a stored control program, an industrial controller examines a series of inputs reflecting the status of the controlled process and changes a series of outputs controlling the industrial process. The inputs and outputs may be binary, that is, on or off, or analog, providing a value within a continuous range. The inputs may be obtained from sensors attached to the controlled equipment and the outputs may be signals to actuators on the controlled equipment.

“Safety systems” are systems intended to ensure the safety of humans working in the environment of an industrial process. Such systems may include the electronics associated with emergency stop buttons, interlock switches and machine lockouts. Traditionally, safety systems have been implemented by a set of circuits wholly separate from the industrial control system used to control the industrial process with which the safety system is associated. Such safety systems are “hard-wired” from switches and relays, some of which may be specialized “safety relays” allowing comparison of redundant signals and providing internal checking of conditions such as welded or stuck contacts. Safety systems may use switches with dual contacts providing an early indication of contact failure, and multiple contacts may be wired to actuators so that the actuators are energized only if multiple contacts close.

Hard-wired safety systems have proven inadequate, as the complexity of industrial processes has increased. This is in part because of the cost of installing and wiring relays and in part because of the difficulty of troubleshooting and maintaining the “program” implemented by the safety system in which the logic can only be changed by rewiring physical relays and switches.

For this reason, there is considerable interest in implementing safety systems using industrial controllers. Such controllers are easier to program and have reduced installation costs because of their use of a high-speed serial communication network eliminating long runs of point-to-point wiring.

Unfortunately, high-speed serial communication networks commonly used in industrial control are not sufficiently reliable for safety systems. For this reason, efforts have been undertaken to develop a “safety network” being a high-speed serial communication network providing greater certainty in the transmission of data. Currently proposed safety networks are incompatible with the protocols widely used in industrial control. Accordingly, if these new safety networks are adopted, existing industrial controller hardware and standard technologies may be unusable, imposing high costs on existing and new factories. Such costs may detrimentally postpone wide scale adoption of advanced safety technology.

Furthermore, conventional safety systems transmit redundant data on two separate sets of network communication hardware as is necessary to detect certain types of hardware failure. While the data may be compared at any point in the transmission for error detection, this system may require additional hardware to accommodate the two messages.

What is needed is a safety network that is compatible with conventional industrial controller networks and components. Ideally such a safety network would work with a wide variety of different standard communication protocols and would allow the mixing of standard industrial control components and safety system components without compromising reliability. Furthermore, it is desirable to transmit redundant data on two separate messages while reducing the amount of necessary hardware, thus reducing the cost and complexity of the communications system.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a network-independent, high-reliability communications system by imposing levels of safety on data that is transmitted over the network while reducing the necessary hardware. The present invention recognizes that redundancy in data transmission may nonetheless be achieved with reduced hardware by providing two messages of redundant data, and altering one of the messages in a predetermined manner.

In particular, a network-independent, high-reliability communications system for an industrial controller for controlling a controlled device using a communications network transmitting redundant data on a first and second message includes 1) a first communication module receiving redundant data on the first and second messages for control of an industrial process at a first pair of processors for processing the first and second messages, respectively, and providing the messages to formatting circuitry to format the data under a network-independent protocol to produce safety data formatted to reduce undetected transmission errors, and 2) a second communication module receiving the first and second messages from the first communication module at a second pair of processors associated with the first and second messages, respectively, wherein one of the first pair of processors decodes one of the messages in a predetermined manner with respect to the opposite message, and one of the second pair of processors decodes the encoded message, wherein the two messages are subsequently compared to determine if a transmission error has occurred.

The foregoing and other objects and advantages of the invention will appear from the following description. In the description, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, which form a part hereof, and in which there is shown by way of illustration a preferred embodiment of the invention. Such embodiment does not necessarily represent the full scope of the invention, however, and reference must be made to the claims herein for interpreting the scope of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a simplified industrial controller using a standard serial communication network linking a central controller with remote input and output circuits and with a remote configuration terminal, such as may be used in the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a schematic block diagram of the control system of FIG. 1 showing redundant wiring from an input switch to the input circuit of FIG. 1, the input circuits having redundant components such as may process the signals from the input switch to send signals over the communication network to the controller of FIG. 1, the controller having redundant processors to send signals over the communications network to the output circuit of FIG. 1, the output circuit having redundant components to provide outputs to an actuator;

FIG. 3 is a fragmentary view similar to FIG. 2, showing an alternative configuration of the input circuit of FIG. 2 using conventional control input circuits without redundant components;

FIG. 4 is a fragmentary view similar to FIG. 2, showing an alternative configuration of the output circuit of FIG. 2 using conventional control output circuits without redundant components;

FIG. 5 is a representational view of the dual communication protocols provided by the present invention in which data is first encoded with a safety protocol and then with a network protocol to be compatible with the serial network;

FIG. 6 is a schematic representation of a data word transmitted over the standard serial network showing the embedding of safety formatting data with I/O data within the formatting provided by the standard serial network;

FIG. 7 is a graphical representation having time on the vertical axis and distance along the network on the horizontal axis, showing transmission of configuration messages to the input circuit, the controller and the output circuit, forming the foundation of the safety protocol of the present invention;

FIG. 8 is a figure similar to that of FIG. 7 showing the transmission of messages after the configuration process during a start-up and run-time phase of the network;

FIG. 9 is a block diagram of the industrial controller of FIG. 1 showing the division of communications between the input circuit, the controller and the output circuit into producer-consumer pairs such as provides redundant communication over a single network and the varied topologies of the implementations of FIGS. 2, 3 and 4;

FIG. 10 is a flow chart showing the principle stages of the safety protocol of initialization, start-up, and run-time;

FIG. 11 is a figure similar to that of FIG. 7 showing normal protocol operation under the safety protocol of the present invention during run-time;

FIG. 12 is a figure similar to FIG. 11 showing protocol operation with a corrupted producer message;

FIG. 13 is a figure similar to FIG. 11 showing protocol operation with a lost producer message;

FIG. 14 is a figure similar to FIG. 11 showing protocol operation with a corrupted acknowledgement message from the consumer;

FIG. 15 is a figure similar to FIG. 11 showing protocol operation with a lost consumer acknowledgement message;

FIG. 16 is a figure similar to FIG. 11 showing protocol operation with disruption of the connection between the producer and consumer;

FIG. 17 is a flow chart of a program executed by the producers of FIG. 9 in implementing the safety protocol;

FIG. 18 is a flow chart of a program executed by the consumers of FIG. 9 in implementing the safety protocol of the present invention.

FIG. 19 is a flow chart of steps performed in accordance with an alternate embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 20 is a schematic block diagram of a control system in accordance with the alternate embodiment described in FIG. 19;

FIG. 21 is a fragmentary view similar to FIG. 20, showing an alternative configuration of the input circuit of FIG. 20 using conventional control input circuits without redundant components;

FIG. 22 is a fragmentary view similar to FIG. 20, showing an alternative configuration of the output circuit of FIG. 20 using conventional control output circuits without redundant components; and

FIGS. 23A-C are illustrations of data altering techniques performed in accordance with the alternate embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 19-22.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention can be part of a “safety system” used to protect human life and limb in the industrial environment. Nevertheless, the term “safety” as used herein is not a representation that the present invention will make an industrial process safe or that other systems will produce unsafe operation. Safety in an industrial process depends on a wide variety of factors outside of the scope of the present invention including: design of the safety system, installation and maintenance of the components of the safety system, and the cooperation and training of individuals using the safety system. Although the present invention is intended to be highly reliable, all physical systems are susceptible to failure and provision must be made for such failure.

Referring now to FIG. 1, an industrial control system 10 for implementing a safety system with the present invention includes a controller 12 communicating on a serial network 15 with remote input module 14 and remote output module 16. The network 15 may be a standard and commonly available high-speed serial network including but not limited to: Ethernet, DeviceNet, ControlNet, Firewire, FieldBus, or CAN protocol. The network 15 may optionally include a bridge 17 translating between different of the above standard or other protocols. As will be understood from the following, the present invention may be easily adapted to applications that use a bridge.

Input module 14 may accept input signals 18 (on like-designated lines) which are communicated over the network 15 to the industrial controller 12. At the industrial controller 12 the signals 18 may be processed under a control program implementing a safety system (such as a machine lock-out or emergency stop) and further signals sent to the output module 16 which may produce output signals 20 (on like-designated lines) to an actuator 22.

The input signals 18 may come from a switch 19 which may be any of a variety of devices producing safety input signals including but not limited to emergency stop switches, interlock switches, light curtains and other proximity detectors. The actuator 22 may be a relay, solenoid, motor, enunciator, lamp or other device implementing a safety function.

Also connected to the network 15 is a standard computer, which may be used as a configuration terminal 24 whose purposes will be described below.

Redundant System Hardware

Referring now to FIG. 2, the switch 19 may produce redundant signals 18 a and 18 b where signal 18 a is, for example, from a first contact within the switch 19, and signal 18 b is from a second independent contact within switch 19. The contacts may have the same logic (as shown) both being normally open (e.g., closed with actuation of a pushbutton 26) or may be inverted logic with one contact normally open and one contact normally closed. In either case, redundant signals 18 a and 18 b are generated so as to provide for higher reliability in the determining the state of the switch 19.

The input module 14 may include redundant interface circuitry 28 a receiving signals 18 a and interface circuitry 28 b receiving signal 18 b. Alternatively, but not shown, interface circuitry 28 a and 28 b may each receive both signal 18 a and 18 b (for internal comparison) or may receive signals 18 a and 18 b from a single contact. The contacts, in generating signals 18 a and 18 b, may each be provided with a separate voltage from the input circuitry 28 a and 28 b or from a common voltage source (not shown). Other redundant variations on these wiring systems, known in the art, may also be used.

Each of the interface circuitry 28 a and 28 b may in turn provide signals to associated microcontrollers 30 a and 30 b. Microcontrollers 30 a and 30 b provide a computer processor, memory and a stored program for executing safety protocol programs as will be described below. Alternatively, or in addition, the safety protocol may be executed by safety protocol circuits 32 with which microcontrollers 30 a and 30 b communicate. In this case, the safety protocol circuits 28 a and 28 b may be application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC). As it is well known in the art to implement protocols through hardware or software or combinations of each, the term “protocol device” as used herein and in the claims should be understood to embrace generally any combination of software and hardware components implementing the indicated functions.

The microcontrollers 30 a and 30 b may communicate with each other through an internal bus 34 to compare signals 18 a and 18 b as will be described.

Microcontrollers 30 a and 30 b or safety protocol circuits 28 a and 28 b in turn connect to standard network protocol circuits 36 a and 36 b of a type well known in the art for handling the low level protocol of the standard network 15. Typically, the standard network protocol circuits 36 a and 36 b are implemented by an ASIC whose implementation represents considerable development time and which cannot be easily modified.

The standard network protocol circuits 36 a and 36 b transmits signals from the input module 14 on the network 15 to be received at the controller 12 through a similar standard network protocol circuits 38 a and 38 b. These signals are processed by the standard network protocol circuit 38 and provided to redundant safety protocol circuits 40 a and 40 b, being similar to safety protocol circuits 32 a and 32 b described before. These safety protocol circuits 40 a and 40 b communicate with processors 42 a and 42 b, respectively, which include separate memory systems and control programs according to well-known redundancy techniques and which intercommunicate on internal bus 34′. Output signals generated by the processors 42 a and 42 b may be communicated back through the safety protocol circuits 40 a and 40 b to implement the safety protocol, as will be described below (or alternatively, the safety protocol may be handled by the processor 42 a and 42 b), and the output signals communicated to the standard network protocol circuits 38 a and 38 b for transmission again on network 15 to output module 16.

Output module 16 may receive output data through a standard network protocol circuit 44 and 44′ being similar to standard network protocol circuits 36 a and 36 b and 38 a and 38 b. The standard network protocol circuits 44 and 44′ provide the data to safety protocol circuits 46 a and 46 b, which in turn provide them to redundant controllers 48 a and 48 b. As before, alternatively, the safety protocol may be handled by the controllers 48 a and 48 b instead. The controllers 48 a and 48 b communicate by internal bus 34″ and in turn provide signals to output interface circuits 50 a and 50 b which provide the output signals 20 a and 20 b. The output signals may be connected to the actuator 22 so that outputs must be enabled for the actuator 22 to be powered. In this sense, a default safety state is produced (of no power to the actuator 22) if there is an inconsistency between the signals received by processors 48 a and 48 b. A change in the wiring to parallel configurations could create a safety state where the actuator is actuated unless both signals received by processors 48 a and 48 b are not enabled.

Alternatively, and as will be described, a safety state may be enforced by a safety state signal transmitted from the controller 12 or the input module 14 to the microcontrollers 48 a and 48 b of output module 16, the latter which may respond by producing outputs to output interface circuits 50 a and 50 b determined by stored values of desired safety states programmed through the configuration terminal 24 as will be described further below.

A bridge circuit 17 per the present invention could use the basic structure shown in the input module 14 but replacing the interface circuitry 28 a and 28 b of input module 14 with network protocol circuits 38 a and 38 b and safety protocol circuits of 40 a and 40 b (where the network protocol circuits 38 and 36 are for different protocols, thereby allowing seamless transmission of safety data per the techniques described below).

Referring now to FIGS. 19-23, an alternate embodiment is illustrated (hereinafter referred to as the “reduced hardware embodiment”) and provides redundant transmission of safe messages while decreasing the amount of hardware necessary for the control system 10. In particular, the pair of network protocol circuits may be replaced by a single hardware circuit that handles communication for both redundant messages of data. Diversity is achieved first by encoding, or altering, one of the messages of redundant data in a predetermined manner prior to transmission through the network protocol circuit. The encoded data is subsequently decoded after the data has passed through the network protocol circuit, and both messages are compared to ensure that no systemic, or “common mode” errors exist in the circuitry. For example, if an error in the protocol circuit systematically alters both messages, then the data on the two messages will not subsequently match once the encoded message is decoded and compared to the other message, as will now be described with reference to FIGS. 19-23. It should be appreciated, however, that while “first” and “second” messages are described herein, the invention is not to be limited to two separate messages. Instead, a single message may contain two logical messages that are processed by a single processor in accordance with the present invention, as will become more apparent from the description below.

The numbering of each element in FIGS. 19-23 corresponding to like elements of FIGS. 2-4 have been incremented by 200 for the purposes of clarity and convenience. In accordance with the reduced hardware embodiment, encoding is achieved by inverting each bit of data by a predetermined one of each pair of microprocessors 230 a and 230 b in modules 212, 214, and 216 such that one data message 231 a comprises the data received by the input interface, while the other data message 231 b comprises the inverse of that data. Following each inversion process at each module 212, 214, and 216, the encoded data is decoded by uninverting the data. The decoded data is then compared to the other logical message to ensure integrity, and then once again decoded prior to transmission to the subsequent module. All data transmitted in accordance with this embodiment may be forwarded in conformance with the safety protocol described throughout the present invention.

Referring now to FIGS. 19-21 in particular, redundant messages 218 a and 218 b are transmitted by switch 219, and are subsequently received by interface circuitry 228 a and 228 b, respectively, of the input module 214. The interface circuitry then transmit signals to the appropriate microprocessor 230 a and 230 b at step 300. A predetermined one of these microprocessors, for example microprocessor 230 b compares the data to that received by microprocessor 230 a to ensure the accurate transfer, and then inverts its data at step 302 while the data received by microprocessor 230 a remains unaltered. The data is then sent through the appropriate safety protocol circuit 232 a and 232 b, as described above, to execute the safety protocol.

The reduced hardware embodiment further implements a single Controller Area Network (CAN) controller and associated transceiver, identified collectively at 236, that routes the data packets to the appropriate CAN 238 of controller 212. CAN 236 thus routes both messages of data to their proper destination on the network, and reduces the amount of circuitry necessary as compared to those systems that employ separate network hardware for each redundant message. The reduced hardware embodiment permits redundancy in the data transfer without the need to employ two separate network modules, as will now be described.

CAN 236 transmits both messages to CAN 238 located in control module 212, which routes the inverted data packet to a predetermined one of processors 242, and routes the unaltered data packet to the other processor at step 304. Assuming that the inverted data is routed to processor 242 b, the processor uninverts the data and compares the uninverted data with the data received by processor 242 a at step 306. If the two messages match, processor 242 b then re-inverts the data at step 308, and processes and transmits the data via CAN 238 to the CAN 244 of output module 216. If an error exists in either of the CAN modules, the data will not match, and the processor may revert to a safety state, as described above. It should be appreciated that the data may further transmitted from control module 212 to output module 216 via bridge 217, which facilitates data transfer between networks operating different standards or protocols, as described above.

CAN 244 then transmits messages to respective processors 248 a and 248 b via safety protocol circuits 246 a and 246 b at step 310. Processor 248 b uninverts the inverted data and compares with the data received by processor 248 a at step 312 to ensure the successful data transmission. If, at any point in the data transfer, an inconsistency exists between the uninverted data and the unaltered data, a default safety state is produced (of, for example, no power to the actuator 222).

Alternatively, depending on the function of actuator 222, the control process may be shut down if an inconsistency in data is detected. The data is then sent over output interface circuits 250 a and 250 b at step 312, which provide the output signals 220 a and 220 b to actuator 222. It is easily appreciated that, while each of modules 212, 214, and 216 include independent safety protocol circuits for each message, the respective microprocessor could be configured to format the data to include safety protocol, as described in more detail below, thus dispensing with the safety protocol circuits and reducing the necessary hardware components of the control system.

Alternatively, as noted above, a single processor could perform the tasks of the pair of processors. For example, in accordance with an alternate embodiment, a single processor receives a pair of logical messages, one of which is inverted. The processor then uninverts that data, and compares it to the unaltered data for error detection. Alternatively still, instead of receiving the two logical messages in two physically separate messages, the processor could receive a single message that includes the two logical messages, thereby further simplifying the communications network. As a result, the “reduced hardware” embodiment could include a single processor processing a single message that contains the redundant data.

It should further be appreciated that, while the data is inverted in accordance with the preferred embodiment, other reversible data manipulation techniques may be performed in accordance with the reduced hardware embodiment. Examples of various data encoding techniques are illustrated with reference to FIGS. 23A-C. FIG. 23A illustrates the above-described inversion process. In particular, two messages of data that are received from lines 218 a and 218 b. As the data is transferred to modules 214, 212, and 216, the data of one of the messages (message 218 b as illustrated) is inverted. In accordance with the inversion process, each bit of data on the predetermined message, including the header 62, data 52, safety error detection data 58, and footer 64, as will be described below with reference to FIG. 6, are all inverted. As a result, the reduced hardware embodiment is usable along with a cyclic redundancy code to enable two levels of safety. While the data comprises eight bits in accordance with the illustrated embodiment, any number of bits may be used.

It should be easily appreciated that the data could comprise I/O data, as described herein in accordance with the preferred embodiment. However, the present invention is not intended to be so limited. For instance, the data could alternatively comprise peer to peer data, in which each party has the same capabilities, and either party can initiate a communication session.

Referring to FIG. 23B, the data may alternatively be altered by shifting the data a predetermined number of positions on one of the messages. In accordance with the illustrated embodiment, decoding is achieved by shifting each bit of data one position to the right, with the last bit being wrapped around to the first bit. This data manipulation technique may be decoded by shifting each bit of data on message 218 b to the left to verify the data with that on message a. FIG. 23C illustrates yet another data manipulation technique for 8 bits of data, in which the position of the first half (first 4 bits for an 8 bit word) of the data is translated to the position of the second half (last 4 bits), and vice versa. This process is also decoded when comparing the two messages to ensure the data integrity.

While it is envisioned that encoding may be achieved using virtually any reversible data manipulation technique in accordance with this embodiment, the inversion process ensures that each bit of the manipulated data will be different than the corresponding bit of the unaltered data. As a result, the integrity of each bit of data may be verified.

Referring now to FIG. 3, specialized redundant input module 14 illustrated in FIG. 2 may be replaced with two standard input modules 14 a and 14 b, input module 14 a holding the equivalent of previously described interface circuitry 28 a, microcontroller 30 a, safety protocol circuit 32 a and standard network protocol circuit 36 a; and input module 14 b holding the equivalent of interface circuitry 28 b, microcontroller 30 b, safety protocol circuit 32 b, and standard network protocol circuit 36 b. In this case, the operation of safety protocol circuits 32 a and 32 b are implemented in the firmware of the microcontrollers 30 a and 30 b and effected via messages communicated on the network 15 rather than the internal bus 34.

Likewise, referring now to FIG. 21, the specialized redundant input module 214 illustrated in FIG. 20 may be replaced with two standard input modules 214 a and 214 b, input module 214 a holding the equivalent of previously described interface circuitry 228 a, microcontroller 230 a, safety protocol circuit 232 a and standard network protocol circuit 236 a; and input module 214 b holding the equivalent of interface circuitry 228 b, microcontroller 230 b, safety protocol circuit 232 b, and standard network protocol circuit 236 b. In this case, the operation of safety protocol circuits 232 a and 232 b are implemented in the firmware of the microcontrollers 230 a and 230 b and effected via messages communicated on the network 215 rather than the internal bus 234.

Referring to FIG. 4, the redundancy of output module 16 may be implemented by separate output circuits 16 a and 16 b, output module 16 a including the equivalent of standard network protocol circuit 44, safety protocol circuit 46 a, microcontroller 48 a, and output interface circuit 50 a, with output module 16 b including the equivalents of standard network protocol circuit 44 as 44′, safety protocol circuit 46 b, microcontroller 48 b, and output interface circuit 50 b. As will be described below, the present invention provides a protocol that is indifferent to the exact parsing of the safety components among physical devices having addresses on the network 15.

Likewise, referring now to FIG. 22, the redundancy of output module 216 may be implemented by separate output circuits 216 a and 216 b, output module 216 a including the equivalent of standard network protocol circuit 244 as 244 a, safety protocol circuit 246 a, microcontroller 248 a, and output interface circuit 250 a. Output module 216 b includes the equivalents of standard network protocol circuit 244 as 244 b, safety protocol circuit 246 b, microcontroller 248 b, and output interface circuit 250 b. As will be described below, the present invention provides a protocol that is indifferent to the exact parsing of the safety components among physical devices having addresses on the network 215.

In accordance with the embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 21, communication between modules 14 a and 14 b, and 214 a and 214 b is accomplished over links 43 and 243, respectively, that connect network protocol circuits 36 a and 36 b, and 236 a and 236 b, respectively. In accordance with the embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 4 and 22, communication between modules 16 a and 16 b, and 216 a and 216 b is accomplished over links 43 and 243, respectively, that connect network protocol circuits 44 and 44′, and 244 a and 244 b, respectively.

Referring now to FIGS. 5 and 2, the operation of the safety protocol circuits 32 and standard network protocol circuits 36 in the input circuit is to embed input data 52 from lines 18 b within a safety-network protocol 54 implemented both as additional data attached to messages sent on network 15 and in the management of that data as will be described. The safety-network protocol 54 is in turn encapsulated in the standard network protocol 56 for seamless transmission on the network 15.

The Safety Network Protocol

Referring now to FIGS. 5 and 2, the operation of the safety protocol circuits 32, 40 and 46 in conjunction with the standard network protocol circuits 36, 38 and 44 is to embed I/O data 52 (e.g., from lines 18 b) within a safety-network protocol 54 implemented both as additional data attached to I/O data 52 sent on network 15 and in the management of the particulars of transmission of that I/O data 52. The safety-network protocol 54 is in turn encapsulated in the standard network protocol 56 for seamless transmission on the network 15.

The data encapsulated in the safety-network protocol 54 and standard network protocol 56 can then be received (e.g., by the controller 12) and extracted through the successive operation of the standard network protocol circuits 36, 38 and 44 and the safety protocol circuits 32, 40 and 46 to provide the I/O data 52 in its basic state. Note that FIG. 5 is only symbolic of the process and that the safety-network protocol 54 is not simply an encapsulation of the data 52 within for example safety data headers but rather the safety protocol includes timing constraints that may be executed in sequence with the standard network protocol 56 so that the safety-network protocol 54 may operate within the standard network protocol 56 without modification of the network 15 or standard network protocol circuits 36, 38 and 44.

This dual level encapsulation and de-encapsulation is performed for each transmission of I/O data 52 on the network 15 that requires a high level of reliability commensurate with safety systems. For non-safety system data, the standard network protocol 56 may be used alone without the safety-network protocol 54 for communication with non-safety elements of the industrial control system 10. Because all data transmitted on the network 15 is embedded in the standard network protocol 56, the safety-network protocol 54 will work seamlessly with a variety of networks 15 providing they have data transmission capacity suitable for the I/O data 52 and sufficient in capacity to accept some added safety error detection data 58 of the safety-network protocol 54 as will be described.

Safety Message Formatting

Referring now to FIG. 6, a first aspect of the safety-network protocol 54 is that the I/O data 52 is attached to safety error detection data 58 to form a safety message 60 that forms the data provided to the standard network protocol circuits 36, 38 and 44 to produce a network message 61. The safety error detection data 58 may include a sequence count indicating the local order in which the safety message 60 is transmitted with respect to earlier transmissions of safety messages. The sequence count is normally limited in range (0-3) as it is intended, as will be described, to detect the loss of only a single message.

Also appended to the I/O data 52 and part of the safety error detection data 58 is a cyclic redundancy code (CRC) selected in the preferred embodiment to be twelve-bits. The cyclic redundancy code is functionally generated from the I/O data 52 and the sequence count so that an error in the transmission of either of those data elements can be detected when the CRC is recalculated by the receiving device and doesn't match. As is understood in the art, a twelve bit error code will allow the detection of errors with odd numbers of bit errors, all two-bit errors, all burst errors up to twelve bits and 99.951% of burst errors larger than twelve bits, for up to two-thousand and forty seven bits of data of the safety message 60.

The safety message 60 is embedded in the network headers and footers 62 and 64, which vary depending on the standard network protocol 56 of the network 15. Depending on the network 15, the network header and footer 62 and 64 may include a CRC code and sequence count and other similar safety error detection data 58 operating redundantly with the safety error detection data 58. Nevertheless, the safety message 60 includes its own safety error detection data 58 so as to be wholly network-independent to the degree possible.

Connected Messaging

As mentioned above, the safety error detection data 58 forms only part of the safety-network protocol 54. The safety-network protocol 54 also includes a configuration step that ensures proper communication under a connected messaging scheme. Referring now to FIG. 9, the communications between the controller 12, input module 14 (or input modules 14 a and 14 b) and the output module 16 (or output module 16 a and 16 b) may provide a connected messaging system. As is understood in the art, connected messaging involves opening a connection between pairs of logical devices one that acts as a “producers” of a message and one that acts as a “consumers” of the message. The process of opening the connection reserves bandwidth of the network and reserves necessary processing and buffering resources at the producer and consumer to ensure that data of the connection will be reliably transmitted and received.

The connected messaging protocol may be implemented as part of the safety network protocol 54 or as part of the standard network protocol 56, the latter option limiting somewhat the types of standard networks 15 that may be used. Some standard network protocols that support connected messaging are DeviceNet and Control Net, Ethernet, and ATM.

Referring now to FIG. 9, under a connected messaging protocol, the input module 14 provides two producers 80 opening two connections with two consumers 82 of the controller 12, one for each of the signals 18 a and 18 b. As a practical matter, these two connections mean that two separate network messages 61 will be sent over the network 15 thus decreasing the chance of loss of both messages.

For the implementation of FIG. 3 with separate input module 14 a and 14 b, two producers 80 are also provided. Even though the producers 80 are now in different devices (having different addresses on the network 15), the operation of the control program implementing the safety system, above the connection level, need not changed by these changes in implementations. Connected messaging thus makes the safety system largely indifferent to topologies as providing for a natural redundancy over a single network, or bridging or routing across multiple links

Controller 12 likewise includes two producers 80 exchanging data with consumers 82 either in a single output module 16 per FIG. 2 or in separate output module 16 a and 16 b per the embodiment of FIG. 4. Two arrows are shown between each producer 80 and consumer 82 indicating the paring of each message with an acknowledgment message under the safety protocol 54 as will be described below, per FIG. 9.

The bridge circuit 17, not shown in FIG. 9, but as described above, would implement four consumers and four producers (two for each network side) as will be understood to those of ordinary skill in the art.

Safety Configuration Data and Protocol

Referring now to FIG. 10, the safety protocol more generally includes an initialization state, of which the first step is developing configuration data as indicated by process block 66.

The configuration process involves developing configuration data at the configuration terminal 24 and ensuring that accurate copies of that configuration data are at each of the input module 14, the controller 12, and the output module 16. The configuration data is unique to each connection, provides essential components of the safety protocol, and identifies intercommunicating parties so as to reduce the possibility of improper connections injecting spurious data into the safety system. This is particularly important in allowing mixing of systems components observing the safety network protocol 54 with standard components observing only the standard network protocol. Devices may support multiple connections, in which case multiple configuration data specific to each connection will be used.

Generally, the configuration data include data uniquely identifying the particular device of the input module 14, the controller 12, and the output module 16 holding the configuration data, and particularly the serial number of that device. The serial number is a unique and immutable part of the physical devices and thus together with an internal address of the logical devices within the physical device (which may establish independent connections) the serial number provides each connection with a unique identity eliminating the possibility of crossed connections between different devices once the configuration data is properly disseminated. To augment the serial number, the configuration data may also include a vendor identification number, a device code, a product code, major revision, minor revision, as well as network data including the logical, physical address of the device, all known in the art and identifying the particular device. Similarly, the configuration data within a device may include the serial number of the device to which it is connected.

As mentioned, the connection data may also include data necessary for the implementation of the other aspects of the safety protocol as are yet to be described, including variables of “periodic time interval”, “reply timer interval”, “filter count”, and “retry limit”. The configuration data also includes the safety state to which the device will revert in the case of network error and a list of related I/O points indicating other I/0 points (related to other connections), which should revert to the safety state if the present connection has an error. This later feature allows selective and intelligent disabling of the safety system upon a communication error as will be described. As will be evident from context, some of this data, for example, data related to how particular devices should respond to a failure of any one device (e.g., the list of related I/O points, is dependant on the devices and their application and the system programmer must develop this data on an application specific basis.

Referring to FIG. 7, configuration data held within the configuration terminal 24 is sent to each of the input module 14, the controller 12, and the output module 16 as messages 66 a, 66 b and 66 c. In accordance with the reduced hardware embodiment, the configuration data will further indicate which controller in each module that is responsible for uninverting the data, and comparing the uninverted data to the unaltered data.

The receiving input module 14, the controller 12, and the output module 16 store the configuration and respond with the same configuration message but changed to a one's complement form (being simply a different binary coding (the inversion)) of the configuration data received. This one's complement message is returned by messages 66 d, 66 e, and 66 f from the respective input module 14, the controller 12, and the output module 16. If the configurations of messages 66 a, 66 b and 66 c exactly match (after complementing) configuration data of messages 66 d, 66 e and 66 f, the configuration was successful.

The configuration data may be shown to a human operator for confirmation. If the operator finds that the configuration is correct, the configuration is applied as indicated by process 68 shown in FIG. 10 through messages 68 a, 68 b and 68 c from the configuration terminal 24 to the respective input module 14, the controller 12, and the output module 16. The devices must acknowledge these messages via messages 68 d, 68 e and 68 f within a predetermined time interval or the configuration will be cleared and no configuration will be considered to have occurred. The configuration data of messages 66 and 68 may be sent using only the standard network protocol 56.

Once the configuration is complete, the safety protocol enters a start-up phase shown generally in FIGS. 8 and 10. During the start-up phase, the necessary safety connections are established and the configuration data is used to verify that the connections expected are those which are in fact made. The purpose of the start-up portion of the configuration is to prevent erroneous connections from being opened between: (1) devices in the safety system and other erroneous devices in the safety system, and (2) devices in the safety system and other devices not in the safety system in a mixed system.

In this start-up process, indicated by process block 70 of FIG. 10, the connections are confirmed from the controller 12 to the input module 14 and the output module 16. In particular, the producers 80 in controller 12 (shown in FIG. 9) send out open connection messages 70 a and 70 b to the input module 14 and the output module 16, respectively. The appropriate consumers 82 respond with connection acknowledgment message 70 c and 70 d, respectively. The producers 80 in controller 12 and input module 14 then send the configuration data to the consumer 82 in the controller 12 as indicated by messages 70 e and 70 f. The controller's consumers 82 check to see that the configuration data matches their configuration data and then send acknowledgment messages 70 f and 70 g acknowledging that match. At messages 72 a and 72 b, conventional I/O data may then commence to be sent.

Referring again to FIG. 10, the data 72 a and 72 b will be transmitted according to the portions of the safety protocol indicated by process blocks 72 involving formation of the safety message 60 incorporating safety error detection data 58 into the network message 61 as has been described above, and according to message handling protocols 74 operating independent of and in conjunction with the content of the safety message 60 which will now be discussed.

Message Handling Safety Protocols

(1) Normal Transmission

Referring generally to FIGS. 10 and 11, the message handling protocols 74 provide for message time measurements and respond to errors in the safety error detection data 58 during run-time. These message-handling protocols 74 are implemented in the safety protocol circuits 32, 40 and 46 or may be implemented in software and are different for producers and consumers.

Referring now to FIGS. 11 and 17 for a normal, run-time transmission, the producer 80 upon run-time will send safety messages 84 (encapsulated in the standard network message 61 per safety message 60 as has been described above) to the consumer 82 per FIG. 11. This sending is indicated generally in FIG. 17. Immediately prior to sending the message 84, a periodic timer is started per process block 89 and a reply timer is started at the moment the message 84 is transmitted per process block 91. The periodic timer interval 86 is longer than the reply timer interval 88 as set in the configuration process described above.

Referring now to FIGS. 9, 11 and 18, the consumer 82 prior to receiving the message 84 is continually checking to see if the periodic time interval 86′ of its own periodic timer (started at the consumer's receipt of the last message 84) has expired as indicated in decision block 92. The periodic timer value 86′ is generally greater than periodic timer value 86.

If the periodic timer has expired, a failure is indicated and the program proceeds to process block 134, a safety state, as will be described below.

If timer value 86 has not expired, then at decision block 90, the consumer 82 checks to see if the message 84 has arrived. If no message 84 has arrived the program proceeds back to decision block 92 to again check if the periodic timer 86 has expired.

Assuming that a message 84 has arrived prior to expiration of the periodic timer 86, then the program proceeds to decision block 112 to check the CRC of the message 84.

Assuming that the CRC is correct, the program proceeds to decision block 96 and checks to make sure that the sequence count is one greater than the sequence count of the last message received.

If the sequence count is correct, then the program proceeds to process block 94 and the periodic timer 86 is reset. At process block 95, the data is applied, for example, to an output or to update variables, and then at process block 98, an acknowledgment message 100 is returned to the producer 80.

Referring again to FIG. 17, the producer 80 receiving the acknowledge message at decision block 102, proceeds to decision block 106 to determine if the periodic timer 86 has expired.

Assuming that the periodic timer has not expired, the program proceeds to decision block 124 to check the CRC of the acknowledgement message 100. The cyclic redundancy code should match the data of the safety message 60 transmitted.

Again, assuming that the CRC is correct, the program proceeds to decision block 125 to determine whether the sequence count of the acknowledgment message 100 matches that of the message 84 that was sent.

If so, then at decision block 127, the data sent in message 84 is compared to the data of the acknowledgement message 100. If there is a match, then the program proceeds to decision block 129 where it loops until the periodic timer has expired, and then proceeds to process block 110 to prepare a new message 84.

This process is repeated for multiple transmissions of safety messages 84 and acknowledgement messages 100.

(2) Message Received but Corrupted

Referring now to FIG. 11 in one potential error the safety message 84 is corrupted for example by electromagnetic interference 85. In this case a message is received at the consumer 82, as indicated by FIG. 18 per process block 90, within the periodic timer value 86′ as measured by process block 92 however there is an error in the CRC data as determined by decision block 112. In this case, the program proceeds to process block 114 and no action is taken and in particular no acknowledgement message 100 is returned.

Referring to FIG. 17, in this case there will be no acknowledgment message 100 received by the producer 80 at process block 102. The program proceeds to decision block 116 to determine if the periodic time interval 86 has expired. If so, the failure is indicated and the program proceeds to the safety state of process block 126.

If the periodic timer interval 86 has not expired, the program will proceed to decision block 118 to see if the shorter reply timer interval 88 has expired. If not, the program will loop back to process block 102. If so, the program will proceed to process block 120 to check if the retry limit has been exceeded. Initially this may not be the case and the program will proceed to process block 122 and a repeat message 84′ having the same sequence count will be sent at process block 84, as also indicated by FIG. 12. If the retry limit has been exceeded, the program proceeds to the safety state 126.

This repeat message 84′ will be received at the consumer 82 as indicated by process block 90 of FIG. 18 and assuming that it is correct it and that it has arrived within the periodic timer interval 86′ based on the previous nonerroneous message, this message 84′ results in the sending of an acknowledgment message 100 at process block 98 per the steps described above.

Typically, if only one missed transmission has occurred, the acknowledgment message 100 will occur within the periodic timer interval 86 of the producer and messages will be continued to be exchanged normally as has been previously described with respect to FIG. 11.

(3) Message Not Received

Referring now to FIG. 13, in the previous example, the safety message 84 arrived at the consumer 82 to be detected, albeit with errors. It is possible that the safety message 84 will not arrive at the consumer 82 either as a result of such extreme interference that it is not recognizable as a message under low level network protocols, or as a result of component failures between the producer and the consumer of an intermittent nature. Under this situation, the producer 80 sends the message 84 but the consumer does not receive a message at process block 90 of FIG. 18.

The “no action” block 114 of FIG. 18 of the consumer (as described above) is thus not encountered but the result is in any case the same: the consumer 82 takes no action.

Thus, as described previously with respect to FIG. 12 at the expiration of the reply timer at the producer 80, the producer 80 will produce a second message 84′ which if received will result in an acknowledgment message 100 initiating a string of normal communications.

(4) Acknowledgement Message Received but Corrupted

Referring now to FIG. 14 the safety message 84 may successfully reach the consumer 82 with no errors but the acknowledgement message 100 may have errors introduced by electromagnetic interference 85. In this case the producer 80 reacts as shown in FIG. 17 by decision block 106 to detect a receipt of an acknowledgment message 100 within the periodic timer interval 86. But there is an error in the data of the acknowledgment message 100.

If the CRC is correct as determined by decision block 124 and it is the sequence count that is wrong per process block 124, then the program enters the safety state 126 in which outputs and inputs of the consumer 82 are set to a predefined safety state of the configuration data. Similarly, if the sequence count is correct but the acknowledgement data does not match per decision block 127, the program proceeds to the safety state 126. If the consumer 82 is the controller 12 messages may be sent to other I/O devices, indicated in the configuration data signaling them to move to the safety state as well.

Assuming at process block 124 that the CRC code does not match the safety message 60, indicating a corruption in the safety message rather than an erroneous duplicate message, the program proceeds to decision block 118 to see if the reply timer has expired as described above. When the reply timer expires the program proceeds to process block 120 as described above and checks the retry counter to see if the retry limit has been exceeded. If so, the program proceeds to the safety state 126 however often this will not have occurred and the program proceeds to process block 122 and a retry message 84′ is prepared as indicated in FIG. 14.

Assuming this retry message evokes a non-corrupted acknowledgment message 100′ communication continues in normal fashion.

(5) Acknowledgement Message Not Received

Referring now to FIG. 15 it is possible that the acknowledgment message 100 is lost completely either through interference or temporary communication failure. In that case, as has been previously described, a duplicate message 84 will be sent from the producer 80 however the sequence count will be identical to the sequence count of a message 84 previously received by the consumer 82. In this case as shown in FIG. 18 at process block 112 the CRC will be correct but as tested at subsequent decision block 96 the sequence code will be wrong. The program, in this case, proceeds to process block 130 to check if the sequence code is one less than that expected. If not the program proceeds to the safety state 134. If so, however, the consumer 82 must conclude that the acknowledgment message 100 was lost and an acknowledgment of the previous message is sent again by the consumer at process block 132.

(6) No Messages Received

Finally as shown in FIG. 15 the producer may be unable to connect with the consumer within the periodic interval 86′ of the consumer. In that case the program proceeds to the safety state 134 directly from decision block 92 as shown in FIG. 18.

The above description has been that of a preferred embodiment of the present invention, it will occur to those that practice the art that many modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. In order to apprise the public of the various embodiments that may fall within the scope of the invention, the following claims are made. 

1. A high-reliability communications system for an industrial controller comprising: a first communication module receiving data and transmitting the same in a redundant first and second logical message, the first logical message being encoded so as to differ from the second logical message in a predetermined manner, the first and second logical messages being further formatted in a network-independent protocol to produce safety data reducing undetected transmission errors; and a second communication module receiving the first and second logical messages, in the network independent protocol and decoding the first logical message to compare the data of the decoded first message to the data of the second message to determine if a transmission error has occurred.
 2. The communications system as recited in claim 1, wherein the first and second communication modules further include a pair of network-independent protocol devices receiving both messages, respectively, of data and producing the high-reliability formatted safety data.
 3. The communications system as recited in claim 2 wherein the network-independent protocol devices format the data by adding error detection data consisting of: a cyclic redundancy code related to the data and a sequence count related to a local order of transmission of the data with respect to other data being transmitted.
 4. The communications system as recited in claim 1, further comprising a standard network protocol device operating on the communication modules and receiving both logical messages and further formatting the data for transmission under a protocol of a standard serial communications network.
 5. The communications system as recited in claim 4, wherein the first logical message is encoded by inverting each bit of data, and decoded by uninverting each inverted bit of data.
 6. The communications system as recited in claim 4, further comprising a second pair of network-independent protocol devices that generate an acknowledgment message upon receipt of the data and format it under the network-independent protocol to produce a high-reliability formatted acknowledgment data.
 7. The industrial controller of claim 6, wherein the acknowledgment data includes the data, and wherein an error is detected by comparing the data to the acknowledgment data.
 8. The communications system as recited in claim 1, wherein the transmission error is detected if the decoded message is not equal to the second message.
 9. The industrial controller of claim 8 wherein a default safety state of the data occurs when a transmission error is detected.
 10. The industrial controller of claim 1 wherein the communications network is selected from the group of networks consisting of Ethernet, DeviceNet, ControlNet, Fire Wire, Field Bus, and CAN protocol.
 11. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the first and second logical messages reside in a single packet of data.
 12. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the first and second logical messages reside in first and second packets of data, respectfully.
 13. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the first communication module includes a pair of processors, one of which being dedicated to processing the first logical message, the other of which being dedicated to processing the second logical message.
 14. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the first communication module includes a single processor dedicated to processing the first and second logical messages.
 15. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the second communication module includes a pair of processors, one of which being dedicated to processing the first logical message, the other of which being dedicated to processing the second logical message.
 16. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the second communication module includes a single processor dedicated to processing the first and second logical messages.
 17. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the data comprises I/O data.
 18. The industrial controller of claim 1, wherein the data comprises peer to peer data.
 19. A method of transmitting control data over a high-reliability communications system for an industrial controller using a standard serial communications network, the method comprising the steps of: (a) receiving redundant data for control of an industrial process on first and second logical messages at a first communication module; (b) formatting the received data for transmission under a network-independent protocol to produce high-reliability formatted data formatted to reduce undetected transmission loop errors; (c) reversibly encoding the data of one of the logical messages in a predetermined manner with respect to the opposite logical message; (d) transmitting both logical messages from a protocol circuit of the first communication module to a protocol circuit of the second communication module; (e) decoding the encoded data in the second communication module; and (f) after step (e), comparing the decoded logical message to the other logical message to determine whether a transmission error has occurred.
 20. The method as recited in claim 19, further comprising formatting the data for transmission under a protocol of the standard serial communications network, to produce doubly-formatted data for transmission on the standard serial communications network, the protocol of the standard serial communications network also formatting data to reduce transmission loop errors.
 21. The method of claim 20, further comprising formatting the data by adding error detection data selected from the group consisting of: a cyclic redundancy code related to the data and a sequence count related to a local order of transmission of the data with respect to other data being transmitted.
 22. The method as recited in claim 19, further comprising assuming a safety state when a transmission error is detected.
 23. The method as recited in claim 19, wherein the protocol circuits comprises a Controller Area Network module.
 24. The method of claim 19 wherein the standard serial communications network is selected from the group of networks consisting of Ethernet, DeviceNet, ControlNet, Fire Wire, and Field Bus.
 25. The method of claim 19, wherein the first and second logical messages are transmitted as a single packet of data.
 26. The method as recited in claim 19, wherein the first and second logical messages are transmitted as first and second packets of data, respectively.
 27. The method as recited in claim 19, wherein step (c) is performed by a single processor.
 28. The method as recited in claim 19, wherein steps (e) and (f) are performed by a single processor.
 29. The method as recited in claim 19, wherein a first and second processor is dedicated to processing the first and second logical messages, respectively.
 30. The method as recited in claim 19, wherein the data comprises I/O data.
 31. The method as recited in claim 19, wherein the data comprises peer to peer data.
 32. A high-reliability communications system for an industrial controller comprising: a first communication module receiving data and transmitting the same in a redundant first and second logical message, the first logical message being encoded so as to differ from the second logical message in a predetermined manner, the first and second logical messages being further formatted in a network-independent protocol to produce safety data reducing undetected transmission errors; and a second communication module receiving the first and second logical messages, in the network independent protocol and decoding the first logical message to compare the data of the decoded first message to the data of the second message to determine if a transmission error has occurred, wherein the first and second communication modules format the data by adding error detection data consisting of a cyclic redundancy code related to the data and a sequence count related to a local order of transmission of the data with respect to other data being transmitted. 